Flying The U S Navy Brewster FB2A4 Buccaneer

[@tomw377]

For a full and very complete description of the Brewster Bermuda, I would recommend reading an article titled, "Brewster B340 Bermuda Buccaneer and its NEI, RAF, USAAF and US Navy Marine Corps use." by Wim de Meester. It details the design, production and operational history of the Buccaneer. By and large, the Bermuda was not a "bad" aircraft. It handled well enough and its primary flaws seem to have stemmed from being under-powered. However, nor did it have any positive characteristics that jumped off the page to separate it from the pack. The horsey and completely fouled up management situation at Brewster did absolutely nothing to help the plane's production. Interestingly, one of its largest intended users -- the Netherlands East Indies Air Force -- never intended to use the Bermuda as a dive bomber. They ordered 162 Bermudas for use in the ground attack role; dive bombing was secondary. In that regard, the Dutch liked the Bermuda for its rugged construction and heavy armament (8 x .30-caliber MGs). It also handled well at low altitudes. To save time in the production process, Dutch Bermudas were delivered in the same configuration as British models, who had also placed a large order. Although poorly suited to the dive bomber role, the Bermuda served well into World War 2 in a number of training and support capacities. In particular, the US Marine Corps considered the Bermuda to be a useful training aircraft, as it very closely mirrored the take-off and landing characteristics of the F4U Corsair. Several aircraft were also used for night flight / radar training. The Bermuda was a poor / unsuitable aircraft for frontline service almost from the beginning. However, early orders from the British, Dutch and French left the USAAC / USN with large numbers of Bermudas after the Dutch and French surrendered. Likewise, production delays caused the British to order the Vultee Vengeance dive bomber instead. Production lines remained open though, as Brewster was taken over by the US Government and the plant was retooled to produce license-built F4U Corsairs.

[@asd36f]

Interesting how the film refers to the Buccaneer as a scout aircraft, and not as a bomber/dive-bomber - no instruction was given on how release bombs in level flight or in a dive bombing situation. 2:15 - was it normal for tail wheels of this era to be as "spongy" as the one on the Buccaneer?

[@granskare]

the 339 which was used with great success in Finland. this is the first I have see of the Buccaneer.

[@fatdad64able]

That bouncy tailwheel.... So what do we have here? A bomber/scout that wasn't used as such and converted to target tug instead, from what I recall.

[@CallmeDaBreeze1971]

I have just been offered an old .40 size R/C model of this seldom modeled aircraft. It's equipped with an old Supertigre .40 and silk/dope finish. I have no idea whose design it is, but I suspect it's Scratch built.

[@craigpennington1251]

This has been under the blanket. Haven't heard of it It does however look similar to the Curtis SB-2C. I do like this aircraft a lot. This aircraft isn't in any of the aircraft books I've ever opened which has been a lot, no one ever talks about it. Very strange. Great video. Are there more on this aircraft?

[@CZ350tuner]

The aircraft never saw combat, only training. It was so bad that the Navy accepted the Curtis SB-2C Hell Diver despite it failing all the Navy's specifications because it was the least bad of the two. Both were inferior to the Douglas SB-2A Dauntless. After WW2 Buccaneers were used (unmanned) to test carrier steam catapults by being launched into the sea.

[@scifyjunkie]

i wish i could find a flying model of this little known airplane.

[@MrDeleon9999]

Great vid bro. Keep them comeing.

[@okrajoe]

Always thought this was a pretty little fighter.

[@jetvette66]

What a rugged looking machine. Too bad they weren't used more.

[@cullyschmetterling3963]

It must surely have been better than the Curtis Helldiver, which was so dangerous to fly that the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy rejected it. The biggest problem was that the Helldiver's stall speed was the same as the aircraft carrier landing speed. This was known as the 'handling problem'. If you can find the video, Royal Navy former chief test pilot Eric Brown was scathing. I suspect that the Buccaneer probably flew well. It looks clean. The tail is pure Buffalo. - lol

[@balsaboy55]

i have the plan for a flying model of this plane..rubber power though 38" wing span?

[@ItsAlwaysRusty]

Apparently SPD pilots that flew during the Midway battle test flew the Brewster FB2 and they were not happy with its performance. It was under powered and very sluggish/sloppy to control inputs. It was too heavy and ungainly. Plus Brewster was the builder and they had chaotic and mismanaged factories. Brewster got so bad with producing planes the Navy had to take over the factories just to get production going correctly. The FB2 never really made it as a dive bomber and was relegated to training and scout work. Though older the SPD was a far better plane.

[@djcahill4]

"Here comes Peter Cottontail...."

[@billbright1755]

A rather ungainly appearing craft, as though it were designed by a committee .

[@jetvette66]

S....B2A4